Minutes:

Change log: Presenting the case for Web Accessibility

(Judy stated next meeting will start at 8:30 prompt – call in a few
minutes before so can be ready to discuss at 8:30 am.)

Shawn: Introduced the subject. We are going to discuss – goals of
the document – Who the Audience is - the Approach to take to target
audience (example, cafeteria plan) and Specifics.

Judy: None of the information is new. Requesting comments for the Audience
section. Do participants agree?

Andrew: Nice to have done this now – missing what was previously
talked about on this topic – who are the readers/audience. Need to
break out business vs. technical audience. Need to consider the background of
the people the document is preparing its case for.

Judy: We may be assuming the audience is a given. This may not be the
case. Need to define who is doing the writing vs. whom it is handed to. These
can be different.

Andrew: Need to be careful about jargon used – need a balanced
approach to the sections.

Judy – Recap the focus – Agree to a balanced approach?
– no comments so all attending the call in agreement.

- Discuss the Specifics Section – Use of “business
case”:

Shawn: Recapped the intent of this section.

Chuck – What do the words “try not in headings” mean?
Spell this meaning out.

Minutes:

Sailesh: He sent comments to the group in his email Thursday –
subject: Economic Factors … redone. Suggests renaming to the
‘Business’ Factors page.

Judy/Shawn suggest bring this subject up again when more of the European
community is present. Rename tabled for now.

Chuck: See a conflict in change log vs document

Shawn: How further assessment and analyze. Left at
‘Financial’ Factors.

Sailesh: References his email and the section on “Business
Factors”. Need objective evaluation points. Should we have
“measure” – how to measure benefits – not going
to be a definite figure.

Judy: There may be too much emphasis on measurement, avoid being
prescriptive. Some audiences are not doing measurements.

Sailesh: not prescriptive

Shawn: Does it fit in a business case - our strength is not measurement.
Does it fit in this document (not a business case?)

Sailesh: How it reads now – these are the benefits and what we
think and how they apply to me.

Chuck: It is important to include statistics. If they are not to be
included than need to at least link to this checkpoint.

Doyle: Agree with Chuck. Needs to be qualified – statistics are
needed.

Andrew: May not fit here exactly but should not lose it

Judy: Do not want adjunct liking (link outside basic document). Want to
fit the topic in this document somewhere. If you want to keep it put on the
page, position it, frame it for a particular organizations interest –
for example: here are factors you may want to track, etc..

Doyle and Sailesh agree not to link to statistical data outside the basic
document (and away from the referring topic).

Sailesh volunteered to develop the topic focus more fully.

Blossom: Keep it short – its not the topic for this page (it is an
adjunct).

Judy: Does it belong in this document?

Shawn: Yes it does. Put it in “end notes?

Judy: We could do that but prefer to keep the document clean.

Sailesh: Sending an updated and Shawn will incorporate this update into
this document.

Blossom: She liked the Old vs this New version. The Old version was easier
to skim read. Wants this New version to be more “chunked” so it
is easier to scan read.

Doyle: Strong agreement with this statement.

Judy: Easier to scan may be harder to read. The new one is an easier word
flow document.

Shawn: Requesting comments on usability also a cost to justify. Hesitate
to make it a major statement because not all businesses buy into
usability.

Judy – corporations only now waking up to “usability”
and bottom line benefit but not all corps consider usability – govt,
non-profit educational - all have different focus/perception of the meaning
of the word usability. Logic is sound – but section may be redundant
– HP and Wells Fargo are “on board” will usability being
cost effective.

Natasha: break into logical titles.

Shawn: Headings organized into ‘skim’ and
‘chunk’ focus may take care of this.

Hank: I deal with this world a lot – in training. Came to
accessibility thru the back door. Accessibility development benefits more
than just the accessible community.

Jon: Deal with usability and agree with Shawn – expand it. He finds
the community as a whole has a carrot vs stick mentality approach. He is
successful in stating the legal protection issue as the “stick”
and talking about corporate social responsibility as the
“carrot”. Usability issues are not fully understood and do need
to be addressed here.

Judy: Shawn will attempt to split these out and report efforts to do
this.

Natasha, Sailesh, Jon Dodd and Carol Smith volunteered to look at the
Investment Consideration section and comment on it, via email to the list,
before the next meeting. Other contributors welcomed also.

Topic 3

Background (from agenda):

Minutes:

Judy: Technical Plenary meeting in March: A working group slot was
requested. Recapped the process of topic proposal and approval. To propose a
topic does not guarantee acceptance to present that topic. Mon/Tues are
regular time – what to do/ how to do it. Thurs/Fri joint meeting for
WCAG 2.0. Should we get a room to do a usability test. The Plenary group has
a strong bias toward technical documents. There is a discussion for what to
do Wed. Should we make it part of this meeting.

Shawn: Is it wise to wait re: technical documentation – will be in
prototype stage – wait to next plenary – a more finished
presentation – put it off.

Blossom: All sounds good but core documents need to be the priority.

Judy: Playing devils advocate. The W3C web site is miserable – good
content but poorly presented. Should do something about the web site –
not wildly inaccessible but not where it should be. There is interest in the
WAI site – should share process as only a work in process. To wait a
year to present may not be good.

Hella joined: Is it a gamble to present something only midway through
development.

Natasha: – going to make an accessibility presentation?

Judy: General session is an EO and talk about this as one of the many
topics.

Natasha: Need awareness to keep all groups in sync.

Shawn: look at process – Natasha – piggy back on what we are
doing?

Judy: Cannot assume they will piggyback

Natasha: Leverage vs risks

Judy recapped to include there would not be a dedicated presentation but
fit it into general program plan as only one of the many topics.